"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:


"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dennis@home wrote:

HTML posts are much easier to read and to quote

That's just so wrong...

and are also plain text
(they don't use any special characters) but you will get a lot of flack
from
the ones that don't like change if you use HTML.

HTML is unnecessary markup which usually far exceeds the text in size.
HTML quoting forces your idea of how things ought to look on me, even
if I have different preferences.

Absolute rubbish.
It is *your* reader that decides how to display it and the sender cannot
force anything on you.

You're forcing HTML. You're forcing colours and fonts and layout.

If you want to your reader can just extract the text and ignore
everything.

So you're going to send a plain text version *and* an HTML version, ie.
multipart/alternative? How utterly wasteful.

No.
You can process it as you like.


Usenet is words without markup.

That is also rubbish.
If it doesn't have mark up why are my quotes marked with "".
Quoting the replies is using a mark up language, just a very simple one
that
is frequently screwed up as the opening quote is "" and the end is nl
both of which frequently occur in other places.

It is minimal, does not obscure, and is purely convention

The same as HTML then.

, which also
existed on FidoNet.

Well we know what happened to fidonet.

Other conventions include emphasis of *two*
_types_.

/really/?


I'll bet your reader (if it's not OE) colours quotes to your chosing.

Even OE colours if you use html.


RTF is plain text too, as is LaTeX.
Should I arbitrarily start posting in LaTeX markup? Oh but your reader
doesn't understand it. Well, my reader doesn't understand HTML either.

My reader can cope with latex.
I can just shove your posts through a program to convert them.

Your reader won't cope with LaTeX natively. Mine can't cope with HTML
natively.

begin 600 hide_sig.txt

What sig?